[navit]

How do I respond to my partner's opening bid of 1 H. she was 2nd seat. I was 4th

This was my hand

Scoring: IMP

---

[jtfanclub]

navit, on Jun 29 2007, 04:28 PM, said:

How do I respond to my partner's opening bid of 1 H. she was 2nd seat. I was 4th

Why not 1 spade?

[Walddk]

1♠, 6+ hcp, 4+ spades, forcing for one round. New suit by an unpassed responder is always forcing.

Roland

[goobers]

1S is normal, your plan is to establish a game force and set hearts as trump (unless something better comes along)

[kenrexford]

IMO, in the long run, if you are playing a 2/1 GF system, you will win out in the long run by bidding 2♣ with this hand. This is a minority view, often deemed poor bridge by some folks here on BBF, but a view that is shared by a number of experts I know.

The idea is to "bid what partner wants," in a sense, to "support with support." Although 2♣ is far from a bid of "support," your hope is to hear a rebid of 2♦, which allows you to agree trumps at the two-level (2♥), much lower than with any other start. Hence, "support with support," in a sense.

Bidding 2♣ does not lose spades when it matters. If spades offers a superior trump fit, you will know this when partner rebids 2♠. If he does not, who cares? A 5-3 works as well as a 3-5, unless there is a reason to know which 5-3 is better. You have no such reason.

If partner bids anything else (not 2♦ or 2♠), you support hearts (3♥), setting trumps, again, at a reasonably low level.

The conventional wisdom auction is to start with 1♠. If partner can raise spades, this is clearly superior, as although 1♥-P-1♠-P-2♠-P-new is viewed initially as a game try, a good partnership will allow for "game tries" to be accepted by Opener bidding as if the game try was a slam try. Although this is an ambiguous auction, it has extra space over 1♥-P-2♣-P-2♠-P-3♠. The downside to this auction, however, can exist in two forms. First, Opener might raise with three-card support, making him hesitant to cooperate in the follow-up auction and thereby actually losing ground. Second, you need a partner who will make slam try type of bids in acceptance of bids that sound like game tries. If he simply blasts to 4♠, your auction is terrible.

The other problem with the C.W. 1♠ is when partner lacks spade support. He will undoubtedly bid 1NT or 2♣ or 2♦ when it matters (not a clear slam because of a jump). If he bids 1NT or 2♣, you have to make an artificial bid before you can raise the hearts if you want to explore slam. This gets unwieldy. It is worst if he bids 2♦, as your all-purpose force is probably 3♣, shich propels you higher and higher before you can get across the simple message of GF with heart support, slammish.

The simple rule that I like, from a person who taught me a lot, is to not count your spades when partner opens 1♥, you have heart support, and you have GF values. If partner bids spades, then count your spades. Otherwise, just bid a minor and raise hearts next. The auction is much easier that way.

The great objection is that 2♣...2/3♥ sounds like heart support with five clubs. The response to that objection is that it does not sound like five clubs if you are allowed to do this with hearts and 3+ in the minor. The rebuttal to that response is that then partner cannot know whether you have a trick-source in clubs for slam purposes. The sur-rebuttal to that is that you know whether you have a trick-source in clubs, and that is enough if partner cuebids properly -- you can make the right decision. The rejoinder to the surrebuttal is that this sounds like masterminding. The surrejoinder to the rejoinder is that you would prefer that partner "mastermind" here to create a smooth auction for you on a large number of hands like this rather than bid all sorts of fourth suit forcings and implied-fit cuebids and game/slam tries and the like, all that have a great chance of being missed, confusing, completely misunderstood, and generally make your head explode.

Ultimately, the two sides call each other names and give up, thinking the other is an idiot. So, you pick a style after discussion with partner.

[goobers]

kenrexford, on Jun 29 2007, 05:09 PM, said:

<snip>

BI lounge.

[kenrexford]

goobers, on Jun 29 2007, 05:12 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 29 2007, 05:09 PM, said:

<snip>

BI lounge.

Actually, as a strong advocate of this type of call, I think this should be in B/I. I'll probably get boo'ed for that. LOL

[Walddk]

kenrexford, on Jun 30 2007, 12:09 AM, said:

IMO, in the long run, if you are playing a 2/1 GF system, you will win out in the long run by bidding 2♣ with this hand. This is a minority view, often deemed poor bridge by some folks here on BBF, but a view that is shared by a number of experts I know.

Would you care to tell us which experts recommend that you respond 2♣ with that hand?

Roland

[the hog]

A 2C bid? I don't think so Ken. 1S is clear.

[cherdano]

Don't tell anyone, but an expert friend of mine would bid 1♠ with this hand.

[awm]

One of the issues is that 1♥-1♠ is actually among the worst starts to an auction in standard bridge. The issue is that both opener and responder can have an extremely wide range of values, and that opener's second call will frequently be at the two-level without clarifying the issue of values. 1♥-1♠-2♦ is particularly bad, as both hands are still quite wide-ranging and the fourth suit is now at the three-level.

There is something to be said for using conventional methods to try and improve these auctions. Various possibilities include Kaplan Inversion, Gazilli, Transfer Rebids by Opener, and so forth. Of course none of these are particularly suited to the B/I forum.

Stuck with standard methods, I will bid my 1♠ and worry about forcing game in hearts later.

[kenrexford]

Walddk, on Jun 29 2007, 05:47 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 30 2007, 12:09 AM, said:

IMO, in the long run, if you are playing a 2/1 GF system, you will win out in the long run by bidding 2♣ with this hand.  This is a minority view, often deemed poor bridge by some folks here on BBF, but a view that is shared by a number of experts I know.

Would you care to tell us which experts recommend that you respond 2♣ with that hand?

Roland

I cannot give a specific list of noted authorities, because I did not write them down. However, a recent discussion of this specific problem came up sometime in the last year while smoking at a major event somewhere. Maybe Gatlinburg, maybe an NABC, cannot remember.

Anyway, a friend of mine by the name of Kenneth Eichenbaum, from Columbus, was the first to share this idea with me. His main teacher was Jeff Meckstroth, with whom he still occasionally discusses theory. A specific weird example of the call was a 5422 hand after partner opened 1♥. As is often the case with weird hand problems, he consults about 20 people of high caliber who know him. People like Eric Rodwell, Jeff Meckstroth, Eddie Wold, Dennis Clerkin, Norm Coombs, Ken Kranyak, and many others of similar qualifications supply opinions. Each discussion features a few divergent opinions, as do any good bidding problems.

On this particular problem, a number of folks bid 2♣, noting that they would have liked to have had a third club, but such is life, not even noting the spade length. I cannot recall the exact vote-casters, or who bid what when, but this recurring theme was one that was not simply a slightly obscure semi-pro friend of mine had as an aberrant idea.

I am truly sorry that I have not written down my precise sources for each theory nuance I have learned over the years. I'll work on that.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Jun 29 2007, 05:09 PM, said:

IMO, in the long run, if you are playing a 2/1 GF system, you will win out in the long run by bidding 2♣ with this hand.  This is a minority view, often deemed poor bridge by some folks here on BBF, but a view that is shared by a number of experts I know.

The idea is to "bid what partner wants," in a sense, to "support with support."  Although 2♣ is far from a bid of "support," your hope is to hear a rebid of 2♦, which allows you to agree trumps at the two-level (2♥), much lower than with any other start.  Hence, "support with support," in a sense.

Bidding 2♣ does not lose spades when it matters.  If spades offers a superior trump fit, you will know this when partner rebids 2♠.  If he does not, who cares?  A 5-3 works as well as a 3-5, unless there is a reason to know which 5-3 is better.  You have no such reason.

If partner bids anything else (not 2♦ or 2♠), you support hearts (3♥), setting trumps, again, at a reasonably low level.

The conventional wisdom auction is to start with 1♠.  If partner can raise spades, this is clearly superior, as although 1♥-P-1♠-P-2♠-P-new is viewed initially as a game try, a good partnership will allow for "game tries" to be accepted by Opener bidding as if the game try was a slam try.  Although this is an ambiguous auction, it has extra space over 1♥-P-2♣-P-2♠-P-3♠.  The downside to this auction, however, can exist in two forms.  First, Opener might raise with three-card support, making him hesitant to cooperate in the follow-up auction and thereby actually losing ground.  Second, you need a partner who will make slam try type of bids in acceptance of bids that sound like game tries.  If he simply blasts to 4♠, your auction is terrible.

The other problem with the C.W. 1♠ is when partner lacks spade support.  He will undoubtedly bid 1NT or 2♣ or 2♦ when it matters (not a clear slam because of a jump).  If he bids 1NT or 2♣, you have to make an artificial bid before you can raise the hearts if you want to explore slam.  This gets unwieldy.  It is worst if he bids 2♦, as your all-purpose force is probably 3♣, shich propels you higher and higher before you can get across the simple message of GF with heart support, slammish.

The simple rule that I like, from a person who taught me a lot, is to not count your spades when partner opens 1♥, you have heart support, and you have GF values.  If partner bids spades, then count your spades.  Otherwise, just bid a minor and raise hearts next.  The auction is much easier that way.

The great objection is that 2♣...2/3♥ sounds like heart support with five clubs.  The response to that objection is that it does not sound like five clubs if you are allowed to do this with hearts and 3+ in the minor.  The rebuttal to that response is that then partner cannot know whether you have a trick-source in clubs for slam purposes.  The sur-rebuttal to that is that you know whether you have a trick-source in clubs, and that is enough if partner cuebids properly -- you can make the right decision.  The rejoinder to the surrebuttal is that this sounds like masterminding.  The surrejoinder to the rejoinder is that you would prefer that partner "mastermind" here to create a smooth auction for you on a large number of hands like this rather than bid all sorts of fourth suit forcings and implied-fit cuebids and game/slam tries and the like, all that have a great chance of being missed, confusing, completely misunderstood, and generally make your head explode.

Ultimately, the two sides call each other names and give up, thinking the other is an idiot.  So, you pick a style after discussion with partner.

This is SILLY. It would be silly in the expert thread, and in the B/I thread it is actually positively harmful, especially the part about 'a number of experts I know'.

Submit this to the BW and see if they even accept it as a problem for the MSC...you'd get laughed at for even suggesting that this was a problem.

You may know more and better experts than I do... but I doubt it. And, if in doubt, ask Justin... he certainly knows more and better experts than I do, altho I have partnered or been teammates with Grant Baze, Mike Passell and Fred G, to name the most prominent. I have had coaching by Eric Kokish as well, and I have read every BW published in the last 40+ years. I defy you to name any top-ranked expert, playing a 'normal' 2/1 gf method or any standard method who advocates anything other than 1♠.

That is not to say that there is no merit to an ARTIFICIAL gf 2♣ response: I played such a method for several years, with a fair amount of success. But don't, don't tell the B/I players that 'a number of experts' bid 2♣ here in a 2/1 method.

I'm beginning to wonder if, having recently read the definition of trolling, you might be heading in that direction. It is one thing to post your weirder ideas in the expert forum, but when, on the same day, you suggest (and argue in repeated posts) that 4♣ is the correct bid with Ax AKQ10x xxx Axx after 1♦ [P] 1♥ [3♠] P [P] to you, and then argue that there is some merit to leading low ♦ from AQx with xxxx void AQx KQxxxx after 1♣ [2♣] P [4♥] 5♣ [5♥] P P P and then make this post.... it sure seems like you are making deliberately provocative posts in order to engender responses instead of trying to further the purpose of the forum.

[pclayton]

What Mike is saying is painfully obvious.

I know of no top player from my area that wouldn't respond 1S. Certainly some of the followups may be tricky if pard bids anything like 2 non spades, although NSI helps (shamless plug), but we can handle this, although the bidding may get a little bulky.

I'm pretty steamed you are bringing this up in a BI forum Ken. Your credibility with me is hovering near a all-time low.

Imagine if a new player reads this garbage and decides they dont want to pursue the game because they cant get a grasp on bidding.

2C is a partnership killer. It conveys the message: 'keep feeding me information pard - I'll place the contract in a round or two'.

Ken, I suggest you come up with a specific name. Preferably they'll post and verify what you are saying. A retraction is in order otherwise.

[jtfanclub]

awm, on Jun 29 2007, 06:12 PM, said:

One of the issues is that 1♥-1♠ is actually among the worst starts to an auction in standard bridge. The issue is that both opener and responder can have an extremely wide range of values, and that opener's second call will frequently be at the two-level without clarifying the issue of values. 1♥-1♠-2♦ is particularly bad, as both hands are still quite wide-ranging and the fourth suit is now at the three-level.

Feh. It's only a balanced 15 count. Doesn't even have a decent suit.

If I was an expert, and worried about getting all my Advanced Reverse Italian Gelatto Cue Bids in, then those auctions are tough.

In B/I, if I'm still asking how to respond with that hand? It's easy.

1♥-1♠-1NT: 3NT in Match Points, 4 Hearts in IMPs.
1♥-1♠-2♣: 4 Hearts
1♥-1♠-2♦: 4 Hearts
1♥-1♠-2♥: 3 Clubs (maybe).
1♥-1♠-2♠: 4 Hearts, unless they're REALLY a beginner, then 4 spades.
Anything higher, straight to 4NT.

If partner has 16 or less, play in game. If partner has 18, they'll probably jump over 1 spade. If they have 17, well, maybe they'll keep going over 4 hearts. If not, 32 is hardly a guaranteed slam anyways.

This is that whole top 5 errors beginners make thing again. Don't make your partner guess what the heck is going on.

[kenrexford]

I frankly do nopt understand what the f'ing problem a few of you have.

Let's go through a few things.

First, the lead of x from AQx. Unless you are a complete idiot, which seems to be a strong candidate so far, you would be hard-pressed to note that I first screamed that the diamond Ace was the clear lead, then for stated humor's sake thought through whether another lead might be the unexpected winner, and actually figured out that one might be. That is a far cry from actually advocating that lead.

Second, as to the call of 4♣. I honestly and seriously believe that this is the right call. Just because you may not does not mean that it is the wrong call. Further, excuse me for believing that.

Third, as to the 2♣ call in this post. As I very directly mentioned, the specific person who taught me this style has a name. I provided that name. That person has a reputation for being an expert player among many people. If you doubt me, as is obvious, then going F'ing ask Jeff Meckstroth, who I suspect you believe to be worthy of your ear, whether that individual is an expert or not. I do not keep track of each and every other person who happens to agree with a specific recommendation for a specific auction, just to appease someone who has his own mindset anyway, largely because I could care less.

I'll acknowledge that this concept may be somewhat dangerous to you for B/I players. When I post things, it is in response to a question. I have no idea what subforum it is in, as I simply click "new posts" and read them down the line. That catches me, a lot. However, that being said, I do not believe that this idea is one that is bad or that is too tricky or that is dangerous. You do, because you disagree with the style.

If you know of no experts in your area that would bid this way, then I suppose, to be fair, you should provide a list of all of the experts you have actually polled on this question. You should also provide specific details as to whether they (1) would not do it because of their style and think any other style is nonsense, (2) would not do it because of their style but understand an alternative approach, or (3) would use the alternative approach. I'd also like to see whether you have polled folks outside of your area, including international players, bridge authors, accredited teachers, and editors of bridge magazines, please. Then, if you would, could you have each of your personal experts write a short thesis on the reasons for their opinion, with mathematical proof?

[P_Marlowe]

1S, intending to show the support later.
Opener cant pass, thats one of the most
important things to learn in the beginning.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: It may be true that the seq. 1H - 1S
is one of the most ugliest starts in standard
bidding, but holding game forcing values and a
5 card suit will make sure, that you survive
easily. If you dont start with spades you will
miss a 5-4 fit in spades, and you will learn
the most (e.g. does partner hold a 6 card suit,
is he bal., does he he hold a min openr), because
of your strength, you will be able to use the
information.

[pclayton]

Ken - The problem that I have is that you are bringing this up in a BI forum. Post what you want in the AE, but frankly these ideas belong in the Non-Natural section.

Why did the OP put this in do you suppose? I'll bet one of two things happened. She bid 4♥ over her pard's 1♥opening and they missed a slam. Or perhaps her partner did. Or perhaps she made a forcing raise with 3 trump and they missed a 5-4 spade fit. Either way, there was a reason. I'm quite sure that she didn't consider a 2♣ call.

Frankly, such an idea probably appeals to a club player, because it sounds like a "short" club. I can see the afternoon regulars talking about this:

"Look George, you don't have 4 card trump support, and 1♠ leads to nothing but confusion. A game forcing "short" 2 clubs set up a game force".

"But Gladys, where do I check that on the convention card? If I have 3 diamonds and 2 clubs, do I then respond 2 diamonds instead of 2 clubs"?

Ken, I really like some of your ideas and thoughts. I'm actually using the out-of-focus major as key card when we have bid and supported a minor and a major in a 2/1 auction. I don't like this 2♣ bid for many reasons, and I've stated that before.

But there's a place for everything, and the BI section just isn't the place.

If you honestly misposted, I will forgive you. If you want to float some of these pet ideas somewhere else, I will enjoy reading them and either agree or disagree on their merits.

[mikeh]

I echo what Phil said: Ken, I disagree, sometimes vehmently, with many of your ideas, but I also usually find some interesting thoughts in what you say.

You try to excuse posting weird stuff in the B/I by saying that you don't check to see what thread you are posting to. Given that you have been criticized several times for making abtruse posts in the B/I secion, you owe it to yourself and to the rest of us to take a quick look... or is that too much trouble for you.... are you having too much fun being provocative to care about the other users of the forum?

As I said, in my earlier post that got you so bent out of shape, I accept part of the underlying logic to a 2♣ response. Certainly 1♠ CAN lead to a strained auction, but so can many, many aspects of standard bridge... that is precisely why no expert pair plays a straight 'standard' card.. even those that play mostly standard have all kinds of pet agreements.

But that is for a different part of the forums.

B/I's need to know the normal way to bid... once they master that, they can come up with work-arounds, with an understanding of the costs and benefits... and to suggest that there is no downside to bidding 2♣ here is either stupid or wilfully ignorant. You may legitimately argue that the downside is offset by the gains, for an expert partnership... but you are not posting in the Expert forum.

Posting your weird stuff here is like masturbating in public, only to claim that you thought you were in your own home, behind closed blinds. Open your eyes first.